,
9 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
My concerns about most of @manhattanDA's new charges as NY state double jeopardy violations. Vance should drop 12 of the 16 charges.
"New York’s charges against Paul Manafort could result in a damaging setback for civil liberties and the rule of law." slate.com/news-and-polit…
"New York’s charges against Paul Manafort could result in a damaging setback for civil liberties and the rule of law." slate.com/news-and-polit…
2/ @alegalnerd, an amazing law resource, cites a 1975 NY Court of Appeals case emphasizing the legislature's wording, that the 2 statutes had to address "_very_ different" harms.
This suggests overreach and error by @manhattanDA Vance.
cc: @DanielRAlonso
This suggests overreach and error by @manhattanDA Vance.
cc: @DanielRAlonso
3/ Matter of Abraham (1975):
Drug distribution vs drug possession are more "different" than bank fraud vs residential mortgage fraud.
And yet the Court held that NY double jeopardy barred the 2d drug prosecution.
Must be "_very_ different." Not good for Cy Vance.
H/t @alegalnerd
Drug distribution vs drug possession are more "different" than bank fraud vs residential mortgage fraud.
And yet the Court held that NY double jeopardy barred the 2d drug prosecution.
Must be "_very_ different." Not good for Cy Vance.
H/t @alegalnerd
4/ This NY case from 1987 is a huge problem for Cyrus Vance and his legal team. It seems they have disregarded New York law, precedent, and respect for civil liberties in charging Manafort for the same crime.
5/ Matter of Kaplan v. Ritter, 1987, fn 4:
"It can hardly be said that the underlying penal statutes were aimed at 'very different kinds of harm or evil' within the meaning of CPL 40.20 (2)."
The court then warned against such flexible interpretations of double jeopardy...
"It can hardly be said that the underlying penal statutes were aimed at 'very different kinds of harm or evil' within the meaning of CPL 40.20 (2)."
The court then warned against such flexible interpretations of double jeopardy...
6/ ...which would wrongly "lead to unilateral evasion" despite how "the Legislature sought to regulate [prosecution] by enacting a statutory double jeopardy protection for those accused of crimes." (NY 1987)
7/ Drug distribution and drug possession are more "different" than bank fraud and residential mortgage fraud. So too in the 1987 racketeering/securities fraud case.
And yet the Court rejected both prosecutions, because by "very different," the legislature meant "very different."
And yet the Court rejected both prosecutions, because by "very different," the legislature meant "very different."
8/ Matter of Abraham was the holding. Kaplan v. Ritter was dicta citing and reiterating Abraham, but importantly, it warned against exactly this kind of prosecutorial abuses by @CyrusVanceforDA @ManhattanDA.
This should trouble everyone across the political spectrum.
This should trouble everyone across the political spectrum.
